Phrases about Islam

     In reading these chapters by Armstrong on Islam in Jerusalem, I found that I was struck by  to some individual phrases which reminded or or challenged what I thought, how I thought, what I understood, and how I understood.

     "The concept of sacred... is not seen as separate, but something that informs the whole of life."                   
             This statement strikes me as so utterly true of the Islamic faith and it can be seen through way they consider government and religion unseparable, but I had never heard it thus expressed.

     "It came naturally to the Muslims to consult the Jews about the disposition of the site that had been sacred to their ancestors."
             Naturally??  This is an unusual claim for someone writing about a city comprised of three groups which have never gotten along even with great effort, let alone through natural  tendencies.
  
    "The caliph chose to build his dome around the rock that protruded from the Herodian pavement toward the northern end of the platform.  Why did he choose to honor this rock, which is not mentioned either in the Bible or the Qur'an?  Later Muslims would believe that Muhammed had ascended to heaven from the Rock after his Night Journey and that he had prayed in the small cave beneath.  But in 688 this event had not yet been definitively linked with Jerusalem: had Abd al Malik intended to commemorate the miraj of the Prophet, he would have certainly inscribed the appropriate Qur'anic verses somewhere in the shrine.  But he did not do so.  We do not know whence the devotion to the Rock originates."
            I was utterly shocked to hear that there is not a decisive origin of the Muslim devotion to the Rock since it seems so central to Islam today.  Do Muslims not consider it a great symbol of their faith?  Would Muslims agree that the story which gave the rock importance was linked to it after it became a shrine?

Jerusalem: Not a History

           Karen Armstrong's writing in chapters 8-10 seems remarkably less historical than the previous chapters. 

During these chapters, Armstrong goes directly from writing about Constantine's rise to power to writing of a debate about the godhood and humanity of Jesus Christ.  Arius, a "charismatic presbyter of Alexandria," did not believe that Jesus was inherently divine and was only divine because God had rewarded him for his obedience.  Alexander, a bishop and his assistant Athanasius argued that "only the One who had created the world had the strength to save it, so Jesus, the Logos made flesh, must share the Father's essential divinity" (177).  Later, Cyril, a bishop beginning in 349 proposes that "the humanity of Christ had religious value in itself.  There was no need to discount it and seek the spiritual essence of the Logos.  By taking a body, God had voluntarily and permanently allied himself with the human race.  The image of Jesus the man revealed Gods eternal disposition toward us.  There was no need to reject the physical world; you could actually use it to seek God" (191).  Though this is important to Christian belief today, the implications for Jerusalem are less clear.

Armstrong's writing about Constantine contains seemingly ungrounded speculations of his motivations.  Constantine, according to Armstrong used Christianity to gain political success and "hoped that once it was legalized, Christianity could become a cohesive force in his far-flung empire" (175).  He helped to uncover what was assumed to be Christ's tomb because he "knew that his Christian empire needed symbols and monuments to give it a historical resonance" (179). While all of this may be true, what does Armstrong know of Constantine's hopes and thoughts?  Are there writings from Constantine which document such considerations about his empire and the role of Christianity?  If there are, why does she not cite them?  If there are not, why does she stop recording history and begin writing conjecture?

In chapter 10, Armstrong writes in a critical manner of Christians.   Repeatedly, she writes of an "inbuilt hostility toward the Jews" (205) when rebuilding Jerusalem.  Though such a hostility may have been present, as I read, I found myself desiring evidence from historical sources which told of motivations for actions, not simply her assumptions or proposals.

I believe I went into reading Jerusalem with the wrong idea – the idea that it was a historical account of the city.  Jerusalem is, in fact, Armstrong's historical account which will naturally be presented with some of her own ideas and speculations and cannot be expected to be a totally unbiased account  - and perhaps that is why it is so interesting.

Class Image

    Our class discussion and class readings continue to reinforce that Jerusalem is a city which is full of conflict, both historically and today.  Yet, the image (above), which was chosen to be central to the class blog, does not show this conflict - it shows hope.  Though some may say that representing the class and Jerusalem in such a manner is unrealistic, I like that we have chosen this picture.  This image offers hope for peace and harmony while inspiring people to work to achieve that peace and harmony.

Personal Symbols

Saving the Temple

    In chapters 5-7, Karen Armstrong repeatedly writes of the idea that the Temple is the core of the Jewish people.  Being that the temple is where God resides, Jerusalem - or any place for that matter, is worthless without the temple because there would be no connection to God. 
     Since the Jewish people believed in this connection to God through the temple, they were very protective of the temple.  Armstrong recounts several times when the Temple was threatened or invaded by other political leaders only to be met with riots and protests by the Jewish people.  She then tells of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem and his visit to the temple where he prophesied, "Not a single stone will be left on another; everything will be destroyed."  In light of all the previous and attempted attacks on the Temple, it makes sense that the Jewish leaders would be worried.  Previously, I had considered the desire of the Jewish leaders to be rid of Jesus to stem purely from jealousy and worry that he was leading the Jewish people incorectly, but this idea of the leaders eliminated Jesus partly because he presented a threat to the temple, their link to God, is completely logical and may even explain the choice those who had been more sympathetic towards Jesus to turn against him.  "Any threat to the Temple, especially during the crowded and emotional festival of Passover, was liekly to lead to violence, which, in turn, could result in dreadful reprisals.  Jesus was a risk that the Jewish people could not afford."
     After the death and ressurection of Jesus, Jewish people became more willing to see God as mobile again as the idea that the sacred could be manifested in a human and that "spiritual reality" could be reached without the Temple, if one believed in Christ and the earth dwelling presence of God, began to be taught - and believed.

Image ideas for Class Blog

Seeking Paradise

       Karen Armstrong, in Chapter 1 of Jerusalem, in trying to explain why the specific place of Jerusalem is so important, discusses the yearning of humans for "something different from the flawed present."  People innately search for a place that puts them in touch with the sacred.  Armstrong then argues that "Today many people seek this paradisal harmony in art, drugs, or sex; in the ancient world, men and women sought it by living in a place where, they believed the lost wholeness could be recovered."  Although, some people do turn to sex, drugs, success, etc. to create their paradise, I think wrong for her to claim that these are the only ways of people today and that only in the "ancient world" did people associate paradise with a particular place.  If this was true, why does the conflict over Jerusalem still exist today?  People today, still look to specific locations to provide harmony and wholeness.  Jerusalem is important to all who claim it as their own because of their personal histories attached to it and the idea that it is their home, in which they, as a people, once enjoyed success, power, and harmony.  Jerusalem still represents a paradise and people are still seeking it.

World News Connection

   As mentioned in class, this link, World News Connection, provided through the IU Library, provides current and past newspaper articles from around the world which are already translated into English. http://dlib.eastview.com.ezproxy.lib.indiana.edu/

City of Peace - Reading Response

    Through each of the readings, it can be seen that Jerusalem has been a site for constant and continuing conflict.  In a repeating manner, Jerusalem has been built, conquered, destroyed, and rebuilt throughout history.  It is ironic, therefore, that in his article, "Jerusalem: Then and Now," Mick Dumper writes that "Jerusalem" is derived from the Hebrew word "Yerushalaim" which means "city of peace." 
     Peace, though, was, and is, scarce in Jerusalem.    Conflicts in culture, architecture, traditions, and religion arose each time that Jerusalem was conquered and a change in power occurred.  Over time, these conflicts have compounded upon one another and have been influenced by the emotions attached to either being conquered or being the conqueror.  All factions within the city, having been the conquerors at one time, feel they have the right to the city.  After so many years of continual conflict, the divided groups within Jerusalem seem unable to work past feelings of hate and distrust and memories of tension and it seems unlikely that Jerusalem will ever become truly a city of peace.